My intention is indeed for us to run a new Technical Board election come the end of 4.2, with much better and more explicit communication about what will be expected of the new members, and a larger candidate pool to pull from to hopefully make that work.
I will be posting my actual proposed DEP shortly so it's more clear exactly what I want to change at a written-rules level - I suspect feedback on a more concrete proposal will help us talk about it more clearly. Andrew On Wed, Oct 26, 2022, at 4:55 PM, James Bennett wrote: > On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 12:02 PM Andrew Godwin <and...@aeracode.org> wrote: >> At this point, it is my view that it is our job to govern with the people we >> have, and the time and energy they can provide, and that's my intention with >> these suggested changes. > > If the problem in front of us is that the Technical Board isn't up to the > level of activity DEP 10 asks of them, and you believe no substitute group of > members exists that would be up to it either, I'm not sure I see how your > proposals are going to fix that, especially since you seem to eventually want > to create *more* responsibility for active intervention and leadership. >> > >> At the end of the day, my feeling is that inaction is not the right path - >> we need to enact some sort of change. I'm more than willing to hear >> alternative suggestions for what that change should be (though as outlined >> previously, I really don't think that change should be "remove the entire >> current Board for underperformance and have another election"). > > A Technical Board election will automatically trigger at the release of > Django 4.2, which is not *that* far off. But the Technical Board could always > trigger an election any time they want to. > > I personally would still like to understand how the current Technical Board > came to what seems to be such a misunderstanding of how the governance was > supposed to work. And while there have been explanations presented for why > the Technical Board didn't communicate the problems it was having, they also > come across as worrying -- we're all adults here, and we need to be able to > trust each other to speak up when there's a problem. How did we go, > apparently, multiple years with the Technical Board not carrying out their > responsibilities and also nobody saying anything about it? > > Until we understand that I don't think we should be trying to change the > governance again. > > And I still would like to see DEP 10 actually tried out. Maybe it involves > electing a Technical Board with much more explicit up-front communication of > expectations, since it seems a lot of the current members were unaware of the > Technical Board's actual responsibilities. Maybe it involves someone just > constantly poking them with reminders. Maybe something else. But it feels > wrong on many levels to start moving on from DEP 10 when it's becoming > increasingly clear that DEP 10 was never really *tried*. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAL13Cg_%3DbczbtMP5B6avbNTLi%3DLf1SU_Z%3Dchz6j0u5L1MPMbzw%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAL13Cg_%3DbczbtMP5B6avbNTLi%3DLf1SU_Z%3Dchz6j0u5L1MPMbzw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/88084dd9-a2e9-4271-9160-79bb463a8adc%40app.fastmail.com.
